Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-10-30

AZ once wrote there, inviting the adyer-
tiser TO call and identify bis property.
A week elapsed, and, as / had received
no reply, l again gave up all hope OF
finding the owner. A call at the news
paper.office elected no information, as
the advertiser had not left his name or
address, but had stated his intention OF
calling for the answers.
Another week had passed and the
matter had entirely escaped my mind,
when one day the owner walked into
nv Office. There WAS no mistake about
it. The Identification was complete.
Three weeks had elapsed between the
finding and the restoration of the
watch, and it would never have found
its way back to the owner had l not
taken such particular pains to find him.
OF course | was much interested TO
learn the cause of the delay in our
meeting. 1t seemed that the watch be-
loneed to the wife OF the gentleman
wEO called to see me. II had been
dropped on their way from the Madison
Square Theatre to their home ut Ora
mercy Park. Mrs 49, did not remem-
Der having worn the watch, and there
fore did not miss it then. 1t was nearly
a week later, after having vainly ran
sacked the house for it, that she recol-
lected when and where she had last
worn it. That was the reason for the
delay in the advertising.
They did not expect to get it back
then and did not think of looking
through the files of newspapers for adj
vertisements concerning it. As they
received no answer for the three days
following the insertion of their notice
they gave up the matter as hopeless.
The gentleman happened to be passing
the Hcrdld Office the day he called on
me, and with little expectation of
reward stopped in to see if there were
any more answers for him. In this
way we finally met. OF course, we
"smiled " over the result.
In talking over the occurrence with
an old-established jeweller L learned
that very little jewelry that is lost in
this city is ever recovered. That, of
course, means that an enormous amount
Of iewelry changes hands every year
without the consent OF the owners. A
study of the lost-and found columns
will again show that. My own case, /
am assured, was only novel in that the
owner was finally found.
During the time / was looking for
him any number OF persons who had
lost gold watches presented themselves.
All kinds of watches had been lost,
from $500 diamond studded hunting
case to a gold-washcd chatelaine. Four
of the anxious inquiIers had reason to
believe that their watches were lost in
or near Madison Square, and the dia-
mond affair was lost in a Broadway car
OF course many Of them may have
been stolen. Some were found by per-
sons who did not come to find the
losers. But detectives and jewellers
agree that very possibly the lost-and-
found advertisements appeared at or
about the same time perhaps in diff
ferent papers, but nevertheless in such
a manner as to make itappear reasona-
BILE that the loser and finder would
come together. Something. which
would probably have appeared reasona-
bic if discovered, interfered to pre-
vent the one from learning Of the
other
The law does not make it imperative
for the finder to overexert himself to
get the owner. Reasonable effort on
his part is sufficient. 1t is necessary
for the owner, however, to use diligent
effort in recovering his property. If
he demands it, it must be returned. II
no owner appears the title rests in the
| finder.
THE DRAMA.
Mr.. Abbey's company appeared in
"Caste at Wallacks Monday night,
and the performance was III every way
successful. The "Mouse Trap" was
shelved forever. The full strength Of
the new troupe is apparent in Robert
sons famous play, and the many OPP
| portunities which the comedy affords for
character-actingw were eagerly embraced.
Undoubtedly the most refreshing and
taking hit was made by young Tom
Robertson, the son of the famous English
playwright and the stage manager Of
Wallack's He played Sam Gerridge
with extraordinary humor and fun.
Miss Coghlan and Mrs. Abbey are pro-
pcrly cast in this play and the results
are eminently satisfactory. The former
is unriyalled in human and womanly
roles, and she plays the character Of
the wife with touching pathos at times.
In sharp relief to it is Mrs. Abbey's
comedy, which is frolicsome and I'M
affected throughout. No other theatre
in the country boasts two such leading
women as Miss Coghlan and Mrs. Alb
hey. They are wonderfully effective
when well cast, as they are in this piece
In Rudolph" Mr.. George Knight
has jumped from farcical comedy, or
more properly speaking. nonsensical
horse play, into pathos and sentiment.
From Cover the Garden Wall to
"Rudolph" - is tremendous distance.
Knights success in the new venture is
indisputable. 1t is the result Of pa
tience, tinkering, toll, and great indus
try, coupled with unquestionable
ability on the part of the star. Bron-
son Howard wrote the piece David Be-
lasco hammered into successful shape
after it had made a distinct failure aud
Charles Frohman managed it. Agreat
trio this. All OF them worked like bea
vers for months, and they have reached
their goal. The honors are all taken
by Knight, though he has in his sup
port two men who formerly starred
Charles Bowser and Newton Got.hold.
Starring is not so common as it was.
The expenses are too large and the
chances too small. Mrs. Potter is the
lion Of the hour Electrically, and when
she goes starring something will have
to give way. The phalanx OF stage
managers, business managers, personal
managers, agents, directors, and at
tendants are loaded for bear. The Pot
ter boom will be conveyed over the
face of the United States in fashion
that will put the memory of the Lang
try tours in the shade.
And the Langtry Well, it begins
TO look as though her star is on the
ware. Her name is no longer the pet
morsel of every mouth, and the papers
that formerly jumped at the chance of
exploiting her or any of her belongings